Teagan Morris

4 months ago

Scenario 1: I don't believe they should start, they have a detailed plan and have identified they do not have adequate funding. If they were to make a start but run out of money, they risk loosing momentum on the project and valuable stakeholder input. Wait until additional funding it obtained, or the budget is reworked to allow for all activities. 

Scenario 2: Yes they should start, the process of obtaining stakeholder buy-in is often a lengthy process and requires action before people will commit.  

Sanaz

4 months ago

Scenario 1:

The project has a strong plan, budget, and expertise but lacks full local stakeholder support. My Actions (Do Something) are: Do not start full implementation immediately. Begin with community engagement and trust-building activities first. Hold small meetings, workshops, or demonstration plots to show potential benefits. Listen to stakeholder concerns and adapt the plan where reasonable. Once some level of local buy-in is achieved, start a small pilot phase to demonstrate success before scaling up. Because acting without stakeholder support risks conflict, project failure, or long-term resistance, which violates the principle of Do No Harm as well.

Scenario 2:

The project has the plan, staff, and expertise, but insufficient funds to implement everything. My Actions are: Start small with the most critical, low-cost activities that will have immediate impact (e.g., volunteer training, communication plans, or awareness workshops). Document early successes to attract more funding and partnerships. Phase the project: implement essential actions now, and expand when additional resources arrive. Reason: Waiting for perfect conditions may lead to inaction, but starting small allows progress and learning, embodying the Do Something principle.

Lara

4 months ago

Scenario 1

Starting the project without full funding is risky, as failing to secure additional resources later could force the project to stop midway. A more sustainable approach would be to begin with one pilot village. This would limit initial expenses while allowing the team to demonstrate the project's value and build trust with the community. Positive results could then be used to attract more support and funding, increasing the chances of long-term success.

Scenario 2

Since the project has a solid plan, funding, and the right team, I think the project should start with small steps. Sometimes, stakeholders give support only after seeing real action and results, so early small progress might help build trust. 

Chitalu Shikaputo

3 months ago

Scenario 1; Just start and do something, the limited funding might help to begin the planned activities that are supposed to take place in the initial phase of the project because looking at the nature of the problem, there is a risk to both human and animal safety due to human wildlife conflict, therefore a few interventions can be implemented while at the same time funding for future activities is secured. Additionally, if stakeholders/donors see that the project is yielding results, more avenues may become available to support the project. 

Scenario 2: What they can do is use the existing support from the local stakeholders and work with them to gain support from the others who do not initially support the project. It may be because they do not understand the concept of the project and would be more willing to hear from locals themselves about how the project will work, because if a majority of stakeholders disapprove of the project, there is a chance that it may be halted. 

Stanley Mbuagbaw

3 months ago

In Scenario , One the project team will have to revise rapidly their work plan priotising activities with impact that are cost effective so as to ensure the get the project running. Through the project management team, they can seek for approval of budget realignment to meet other work packages or completely discard those with less incidents 

In Scenario 2 

They can start the project by confrontinf the blockage, if stakeholder engagement was not initially previewed in the work plan, this can be integrated as a new task as the success of the project depends greatly on the adherence of local communities. Through consultative meetings, they can break this barrier through proper explanations hence fascilitate the implentation of the other work packages . Also based on available staff and funding, work packages can begin with communities who have already expressed consent

Mario Jimenez

3 months ago

Scenario 1: This project in Bangladesh, although it is not fully funded, has a strong plan, staff, and expertise. Following the “Do Something” principle, they should begin with available resources rather than wait. By focusing on impact, they can prioritize the most critical actions, like volunteer training. With the “Embrace Change” mindset, they can stay flexible and adapt as funding or needs evolve. Starting small but strategically can still lead to meaningful results.

Scenario 2: Although the project in Sweden has a solid plan, funding, and the right expertise, the lack of support from some local stakeholders is a serious concern. While the Do Something principle encourages action, it must be balanced with Do No Harm, which reminds us that acting without community support can lead to conflict, resistance, or long-term damage. According to Focus on Impact, the project’s success depends not just on technical execution but on meaningful, lasting change—something unlikely without local buy-in. Applying Embrace Change, the team should be flexible and ready to adapt the project based on feedback from the community. Finally, Take Responsibility means acknowledging the importance of local voices and actively working to earn trust and build partnerships. In summary, the project should not start yet. Instead, the team should invest time in dialogue, address concerns, and adjust the project to ensure it is inclusive, ethical, and impactful.

Caitlin

3 months ago

Scenario 1: They should definitely take action towards safety protocols when tigers enter villages. To focus on impact, they should identify at least one group within each village to ensure there is some training delivered to all impacted by these encounters. Project activities could be scaled down to less villages, or less resource intensive exercises in order to still have impact.

Scenario 2: No, they should not start the project in its entirety as the lack of consent at the beginning will mean the project is likely to be incomplete/not have a long-term follow-through. Work should be done to allow stakeholders to see the potential value in the project's outcomes. Should this fail, the project should be re-designed to take into consideration the stakeholders concerns

Giovanni Rodríguez Cambronero

3 months ago

Scenario 1
I believe it would not be entirely correct to start all stages of the project; however, I would prioritize the key stages that could be carried out with the limited resources already available. Considering that I already have trained staff and experience, I would ensure to follow a logical order of results.

Scenario 2
Before starting, I would organize a working session with the stakeholders, where I would present the project in a language adapted to the knowledge of the target audience. I would introduce the team and demonstrate that we have the necessary funding. I would explain the objectives to be pursued. Finally, I would open the dialogue with the parties to address doubts and allow all necessary questions, so that a uniform consensus can be reached among all parties.

Sally Murugi Kahoro

2 months ago

Scenario 1:
The project has a plan and the expertise. However, they lack all the funding needed. According to the Do Something principle, I believe they should not start the project as lack of funding can lead to the project stalling. They can however do something such as sourcing for more funding and any of the small tasks that do not require funding 

Scenario 2:

The project has a plan, funding and staff expertise while just lacking all local stakeholder's support. I believe they should begin the project and apply the principle of being Adaptable to Change and they can change certain aspects of their project depending on the local stakeholders' requirements and contributions

John Hartshorn

2 months ago

Scenario 1: I think they should start, given the 'Do something' principle urges projects to do so. However, I would ensure that there is a project work package set up with the intent of immediately addressing the funding. Depending on how well that progresses and whether it hits its milestones, a replan might be feasible (Embrace change). There are different answers in the existing comments so far on this exercise and some excellent points have been raised both in support of the project starting and recommending against in the absence of being fully funded.

Scenario 2: Again, I think the project should start but it should have an immediate work package specifically aimed at seeking support from local stakeholders and which addresses the 'Do no harm' principle. This may well require some changes to the project plan in the short term to accommodate the concerns or needs of those stakeholders and ensuring no harm is done to either the habitats and biodiversity of the project site, but also to the stakeholders. 

Cynthia kanana kariuki

2 months ago

Scenario 1

Delaying action is not an option. The more a project on human-tiger conflict is delayed, the more harm is done to both people and tigers. Work should start soonest possible using the limited budget available to train the response staff. This is a critical first step that will allow the project to show tangible achievements to the community. By demonstrating commitment and a proven track record of success, the project can secure the additional funding needed to complete the work.

Scenario 2

The project must start immediately, as it is unrealistic to expect support from all local stakeholders before beginning. The more they delay, the more habitat could be lost. The best strategy is to begin the work, as demonstrating tangible, positive change is often the most powerful way to win over hesitant individuals. By proving their commitment and showing the good work in action, the project can secure the support needed to succeed. It is crucial to maintain good relationships with all stakeholders throughout the process, regardless of their initial position, as this builds trust and ensures the project’s long-term success.

Hannah Abbott

about 2 months ago

Scenario 1

Not yet - they should reassess and reduce which work package and activities to focus on. Their detailed plan should include adequate, defined budget to get started, as well as the impact and schedule. They have all the staff with the relevant qualifications and volunteers may generate some income. If they have funding available for a reduced activities to act imminently to ensure the villages are safe from tiger and human conflict, then I would aim for this. 

Scenario 2

Yes - they have a detailed project plan, complete with impact and budget, and I’m presuming, schedule. Building relationships with stakeholders is an ongoing journey that can start alongside the project. 

Irati Abascal Zúñiga

about 2 months ago

Scenario 1 :
If you already have the staff and expertise required, you can start paving the way for the project. That said, I don’t think you should officially launch it yet since you don’t have the necessary budget.

If the staff and team agree, you could begin by connecting with the villages, getting a feel for the context, having conversations, and making visits — always being mindful that there is no funding available and that everything carried out will be done without a budget.

Scenario 2:
If you don’t have the support of all stakeholders, even if you have everything else in place, I think it’s important to carefully review which stakeholders are not on board and what their reasons are. You’ll need to consider whether it is possible to move forward without their support, or if doing so would cause offense, or if there are specific restrictions.

Hannah Cooper

about 2 months ago

Project 1 should wait until adequate funding is found to start the project. Many funders will not fund retroactively so going ahead with the project could mean the potential pool of funders could shrink as work progresses. Funding applications from grants usually takes a few months for money to be available if successful so the project should wait until it has secured funds.

Project 2 should go ahead with a work stream directed to engaging stakeholders. Stakeholders may be more likely to support the project if they are involved in hands on action. Involving them something that is fully funded, planed and actively working is a good way to get them engaged. 

Marli Burger

about 2 months ago

Scenario 1:

I would say that if the work of the staff and expertise is reliant on the other activities that require funding, then it won't be a good idea to start the project, as it will cause the project to halt mid-way with no means of completing the project if sufficient funds are not available.

Scenario 2:

It depends on the project. If all stakeholders have not agreed, but will likely agree once they've been approached, then it would be a good idea to start the project. If your entire project is dependent on the buy-in of the stakeholder(s), and nothing can be implemented without their say so, then I would spend more time trying to get their approval before spending money. We had a conservation project focused at some of the airports in South Africa and needed the approval of ACSA (The company in South Africa that owns and operates the country's nine principal airports) before we could implement the project. We went ahead with the project with the idea that we would obtain approval if we could show the merits of the project, however we were never able to get their approval and the deployment of our software could not be done at the airport itself and we had to refocus our efforts at private cargo companies, which did not have the same impact as it would've had at the airports itself.

Natalie Ellis

about 2 months ago

Scenario 1 They are able to start the project by looking for volunteers to start with the basic tasks such as ideas for how to prevent the tigers coming into the villages and looking for sources of funding to allow the project to go ahead. As this project would be important for the village I think people would be willing to help to allow the tigers and the people to live together without the challenges of the tigers coming into the village. Through starting small it may gain the interest of fundraisers or sponsorship from organisations who would want to protect the tigers but realise that there is a conflict of interest between them and the people.  

Scenario 2 I feel that for scenario two that the situation does not have conflict between people and animals so that they would be able to wait to gain stakeholder approval before starting the project. 

Brenda Muriithi

19 days ago

Scenario 1: Bangladesh (Tiger Response Teams)
Even though the team doesn’t have all the funding, they already have the expertise and a strong plan so yes, they should start the project. They can begin with a pilot phase in one or two villages using existing resources. This would help test their model, build community trust, and generate results that could attract additional funding. Waiting for full funding might delay critical response efforts and increase human–wildlife conflict.

Scenario 2: Sweden (Alpine Tundra Restoration)
No, they shouldn’t start immediately without full stakeholder support because in conservation, community buy-in is essential for long-term success. Instead, they can begin by engaging local stakeholders, listening to concerns, and co-developing solutions to build trust. Starting physical restoration without support could lead to resistance or sabotage, harming both relationships and outcomes.